I guess these terms are subjective qualifiers, but by any standard of evidence for the existence of historical figures, the evidence is comparatively better tha

I guess these terms are subjective qualifiers, but by any standard of evidence for the existence of historical figures, the evidence is comparatively better than most. As to timeframe: A lot of key written evidence of Jesus was authored within a century of his life, which comparatively is "pretty good" as far as these things go. Much written evidence of historical events or people that we have wasn't contemporary to the subject in question either, but authored by historians, sometimes far later than a century. By that standard, the contemporaneousness is "pretty good". As to Sources: In addition to the synoptic gospels, you also have non-Christian, non-sympathetic sources such as Tacitus referring to the Crucifixion of Jesus by Pontius Pilate. Or Josephus. This represents a variation of disconnected sources (not informed by each other), that by any standard is comparatively better than most. So the quality of the evidence is built upon not only the _quantity_ of accounts, but the variation of sources, and the general agreement of even basic facts (existence, death). This quality is better evidence than we have of many historical figures that we assume to be real. And as another comment pointed out, the simplest explanation is that this doesn't represent a grand conspiracy of disconnected ancients.